Mourning continues in Oakland after the death of at least 36 people in a fire at the Ghost Ship warehouse, where the victims were overwhelmingly young artists, activists and community organizers. Many local artists and tenants' rights activists say the fire is a symptom of a failed urban housing policy where rising rents have forced people to live and make art in sometimes hazardous spaces. "We need safe spaces to be able to come into the light and to stop treating artists like criminals," says our guest, Nihar Bhatt, a Bay Area DJ and record label owner who survived the warehouse fire but lost seven friends.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMYGOODMAN: In Oakland, California, mourning continues over the death of at least 36 people who were killed in a fire at the Ghost Ship warehouse one week ago. The fire is one of the deadliest building fires in the last half-century in the United States. The Ghost Ship was an artist collective that housed many young artists and musicians, and the victims who were overwhelmingly young artists, activists and community organizers. This is Oakland resident Amir.

AMIR: Obviously, I'm sad. I knew two people in the fire, named Alex and Anna. You know, obviously, I'm sad, but I'm more concerned about their family and their well-being. More than that, I've lost two friends.

AMYGOODMAN: The Ghost Ship warehouse was reportedly rife with fire hazards. Its landlord had a history of owning properties with building violations. Many local Oakland artists and tenants' rights activists say the fire is a symptom of a failed urban housing policy where rising rents have forced people to live and make art in sometimes hazardous spaces. In the wake of the fire, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf has pledged $1.7 million to create and sustain affordable safe spaces for local artists and arts organizations.

For more, we go directly to Oakland, California, where we're joined by Nihar Bhatt, a Bay Area DJ, record label owner, who survived the Ghost Ship warehouse fire. Seven of his friends died that night.

The night of the fire, which was this last Friday -- I can't believe it's only been a week; it feels like a lifetime -- I was going to the event, and going to the event to support a number of friends that were -- that were performing that night. And I actually got out of a car, walked over to the building where the event was happening. I was out front. I saw a couple of my friends, and I started chatting with them. There was -- you know, it was two friends in particular. One of them went inside midway through our conversation a couple minutes later. He never came out of the building. The other friend that I was chatting with, we hung back, chatted for a little bit.

And then suddenly we heard the word "fire." We looked over, you know, and in horror. People started pouring out. We couldn't believe what we heard. You know, we immediately thought, "What can we do?" We were sort of still, you know, about -- we were about to enter the building, and we wanted to know what we could do. We were -- before we could even formulate our thoughts on that question, the entire building filled up with just plumes of smoke starting to waft out of the building. And we realized there was no way we could enter.

We had no idea what was going on. We waited outside of the building for hours. You know, realizing that no one was coming out, we spent a lot of time just -- you know, I just imagined, was just dreaming of our friends emerging, you know, in some way, something happening. But the fact is, the building was -- it was not possible to enter the building. Very quickly, this entire incident happened, so much more quickly than anyone could have imagined. You don't -- I don't think any of us could have imagined a fire taking -- taking and completely consuming a building as quickly as it did. Really, the smoke is something that none of us -- none of us could have anticipated it would have been that deadly that quickly. So, you know, we watched it happen and waited outside, realizing that a lot of people we knew -- in my case, seven people I knew well, people that were really important to me -- were inside -- and, you know, important to me for a lot of different reasons. And yeah, basically, we waited and waited to hear -- to see if there were something we didn't know. But the simple truth was that they were never coming out.

AMYGOODMAN: Can you -- Nihar, can you describe the Ghost Ship, what this space represents for the community, for artists?

NIHARBHATT: Sure. The Ghost Ship is just one of the few places left where the community could -- well, for my community, is one of the few -- which is the sort of underground techno and house and experimental electronic music scene -- it was one of the few places that was open to us to do events, to -- events that had a long timeline and that could go very late into the night. It was a community -- it was a space where we could go, outside of the typical bar and club scene that that type of event sort of usually often takes place in, which is -- which is really important, because, you know, in bars and clubs, the imperative is to sell alcohol, to -- and that's -- you know, whether there are good people working in a bar or a club or not, the reality is, you know, what you have to do is sell as many drinks as possible. And that creates a certain dynamic around a space. You know, it means that the people that are able to shape events in that space are the people with the biggest pockets. And, you know, at a space like the Ghost Ship, you know, and other spaces --

AMYGOODMAN: And why they call it the Ghost Ship?

NIHARBHATT: You know, I am not entirely sure why the -- where that name came from. One thing about the space is that it was -- you know, it was a space that our community rented for events. We weren't -- you know, most of the people -- the people that lived there weren't really involved in the organization of that event. But there was some art that was sort of -- that sort of was reminiscent of that feel. There was a large ship at one point suspended in the space, and I think that that was part of the aesthetic. But --

AMYGOODMAN: Well, several residents and friends say the fire highlighted the long-standing issue of the lack of affordable properties in the Bay Area. This is Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin.

MAYORJESSEARREGUIN: Really, this is a symptom of the broader housing gentrification crisis that's affecting the entire Bay Area, where artists are being pushed out of cities and pushed into oftentimes, you know, dangerous situations. And we need to do more to create more affordable and safe space for artists to live and work in our community.

AMYGOODMAN: Nihar Bhatt, your response?

NIHARBHATT: Yes, I couldn't agree more. You know, what we've seen -- I mean, in Oakland, in general, the Bay Area, there have been thousands of evictions a year. The escalation -- the scale of the housing crisis is something that, you know, is well known worldwide in the Bay Area, and that, you know, what has become epidemic in San Francisco has bled into Oakland in a really dramatic way. That's something that affects, you know, all kinds of people. Within the artist community and within the -- in the case of sort of work-live spaces for artists, you see -- you know, you see this pretty -- very dramatically. You know, there are so many spaces that have been evicted and -- evicted in the last few years. The LoBot Gallery in Oakland, 1919 Market Street in Oakland are just two of the spaces that were lost in recent times. And, you know, that's -- it's just one symptom of it, but it has an effect on all kinds of things.

In this case, you know, it had -- it drove people into a space that I think had a lot of -- was a compromise. I think a lot of people were conscious that it was not the safest place because of some specific factors about it. Nobody understood the scale of how safe -- how unsafe it would end up being. Nobody really -- I don't think anyone could really have predicted how bad this tragedy would be. But it is the case that sort of the reason why people were driven to both live and then throw events at the space -- and the majority of people who perished didn't live there; they were just attending an event there, you know, the majority of people. And the reason why people -- why this space became central was because of the dwindling effect of and the lack of alternatives.

AMYGOODMAN: Nihar, Mayor Libby Schaaf has pledged $1.7 million to create and sustain so-called affordable safe spaces for artists. Is this enough? She was shouted down at a vigil for warehouse fire victims. What do you think she should be doing?

NIHARBHATT: I think there -- you know, that is not nearly enough. First of all, this initiative is one that was already in the works before the fire. It's not -- it's not a response to the fire, but it's been announced since then, you know, as part of Libby Schaaf's attempt at claiming that there is no witch hunt or overreaction to the fire. But the reality is, right now, you know, multiple warehouse spaces have already been served eviction notice within Oakland. Right now, you know, in the last couple of days since the fire, many others have been served inspection notices. Inspection notices -- you know, 1919 Market, it was an inspection notice that led to their -- to their eviction.

And, you know, the reality is, there needs to be much greater action, much more swift action. There's, you know, the -- right now, what we really need is a moratorium on evictions, you know, a moratorium on red tagging of buildings, things that -- things that will affect all of the people being evicted, because, you know, what's happened after this disaster has been, you know, I think, another example of disaster capitalism, a situation where landlords, developers and other people that actually can profit quite a bit from -- you know, from closing up and rebooting these spaces are jumping on this and taking advantage of it to colonize even more space within the East Bay. And I see -- you know, I think that dynamic is unfolding immediately, and it requires immediate action. Sort of this promised budget in the future is not enough. Furthermore, there needs to be -- you know, there needs to be funding for not just live-work spaces, which is an extremely -- is an extremely essential piece of this, but also venues for this specific type of art. You know, late-night -- the late-night dance music that was played there needs a space to unfold to actually, you know, realize its own purpose, which is to actually have these long, late-night events.

AMYGOODMAN: Nihar Bhatt, who owns the -- who owns the building?

NIHARBHATT: The building itself is owned by some absentee landlords. You know, their names escape me right now. But the building was administered in large part by the master tenant at the time.

AMYGOODMAN: And on Wednesday, Oakland's alternative weekly, the East Bay Express, published an article in which fire department whistleblowers blamed the tragedy on a poorly managed fire department.

NIHARBHATT: Yes.

AMYGOODMAN: The article reads, "Several Oakland Fire Department employees looked up the warehouse's fire-code inspection history. But when they attempted to pull records for 1315 31st Avenue from their own fire-prevention bureau's files, they discovered nothing. 'It's not even in the system,' one firefighter said (he asked not be identified for fear of retaliation from the city for speaking out)." He and other firefighters went on to say the department's building-inspection program is, quote, "dangerously under-staffed and disorganized." Again, that from the Oakland East Bay Express.

NIHARBHATT: Yeah, that's absolutely right. I think that the priorities of the city, you know, have not been with safety, have not been with fire safety. And you see -- you know, there were only six building inspectors in Oakland. They hadn't been inside of this building for years and years and years. And I think, you know, that mismanagement and that negligence -- you know, there's been a lot of talk about that's sort of tried to shift blame to the renters or the organizers of this event for this incident. But the reality is, there is -- you know, not only is the Oakland Fire Department very understaffed and underresourced and mismanaged, it seems, too, but also there is a tremendous incentive within the city to not report the space that you work. And the reality is, the people with the biggest interest in defending ourselves and protecting ourselves from further tragedy, of making these safe spaces, are the people who live in these spaces, the people who throw events in these spaces, the people who attend these spaces. But right now, if you report a space, you might be homeless. You might be out of -- or you might be out of a space to have special events. So, until there's a clear and nonpunitive path to people coming into compliance -- coming into compliance, to people being able to throw events, you know, in the way that they need -- they want to and need to, there will -- I think people will continue to operate in secrecy like this. So it's a double -- you know, it's part of a larger systemic problem.

AMYGOODMAN: I want -- I wanted to ask you about the transgender people who died in the fire, including Cash Askew from the band Them Are Us Too, a number of transgender people dying in the fire. Since then, multiple media outlets have misgendered them, adding to the grief of the community. Can you talk about this, Nihar?

NIHARBHATT: Yeah, I think it's -- you know, Cash Askew is somebody who struggled a lot within the music scene for -- you know, to be treated equally and to be -- you know, to be recognized the way that she wanted to be. And, you know, the misgendering of her and Feral Pines and anyone else, you know, any other transgender victims or people associated with this, just adds further insult to what has already been a horrible tragedy. You know, these people struggled their whole lives for recognition, to be understood as their true selves. And they're -- and it's the least that we can ask that the -- that when paying respect to them, that the media recognizes them for the -- in the way that they wanted to be recognized in their lives.

And furthermore, you know, I think it's important to say that one of the reasons why there were so many transgender people at this event, as well as queer attendees -- other queer attendees and people of color who were victims of this fire, is because of the type of space -- the type of opportunity a space like this presents. You know, in the mainstream sort of club environment, bar environment, where alcohol reigns supreme, where there's a different kind of environment, often, I think, people -- you know, these marginalized communities can face harassment, can -- it doesn't feel like a safe space for them, for a completely different set of reasons. And so, in a space like this, you know, communities can self-organize and, essentially, be part of it in a different way, be included. And within Oakland, there is a very strong scene of queer, transgender artists, you know, especially experimental artists within the electronic music scene, in particular, and as well as black and brown artists that are -- you know, I think that are a really important, key part of the city's scene.

AMYGOODMAN: Nihar --

NIHARBHATT: And they -- go ahead.

AMYGOODMAN: I just wanted to say that we've heard of a number of spaces, from Baltimore to Nashville to other cities, being closed down. And we just got this email from a listener, who wrote, quote, "Here in Denver, our beloved artist spaces Rhinoceropolis and GLOB were shut down last night by authorities. They had been hosting events for independent experimental artists for over 10 years. They passed their annual inspection and were up to code with the city and their landlord," the email said. It went on to say, "The community was in mourning. Now many are without a home and without the spaces they pour their hearts and souls into. These are spaces radically tolerant for self-expression. We're all very sad," unquote. As we wrap up, Nihar, your thoughts about safe and unsafe spaces and what to do?

NIHARBHATT: Yeah, I think -- I think what we see right now is that the -- what we see right now is that across the country, like you said, Amy, you know, landlords are, either out of fear or out of the opportunity that this presents for them, shutting down spaces, you know, and the city, in many cases, are collaborating with them. But I think that this will only make the problem worse. By punishing these spaces, we are creating conditions for people to live in even more dangerous places, as well as throw events in even more dangerous spaces.

We need to -- the city needs to fund and protect people, that are right now under attack, from eviction, from being thrown out of these spaces. And they also need to fund the arts. They need to find spaces for people to throw late-night -- late-night electronic music parties, as well, as a way -- you know, because we -- people often think of this, you know, funding for the arts, support for the arts, places for artists to live and do their work, as something extra, something beyond the bread-and-butter issues. But I think we've seen, through this event, that this is a matter of life and death. You know, we need safe spaces to be able to come into the light and to stop treating artists like criminals, you know, any kind of artist, people who are -- whether you're throwing a dance party, you know, or organizing a work-live space, you know, that is created by themselves.

AMYGOODMAN: Nihar, we're going to have to leave -- we have to leave it there, but I thank you so much for spending this time, Bay Area DJ, record label owner, who survived the Ghost Ship warehouse fire. Seven of Nihar's friends died in the Ghost Ship fire. And again, our condolences to you, as we go out with the music of Cash Askew, one of the victims of the fire.

[break]

AMYGOODMAN: That was actually Patti Smith, the legendary singer, poet and author, singing "Peaceable Kingdom," Patti Smith singing Monday night at Riverside Church as we celebrated Democracy Now!'s 20th anniversary. She wrote the song for Rachel Corrie, the American peace activist who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer March 16, 2003, in Gaza. She dedicated the song to all those who died in the Oakland fire, as well as young journalists and activists who have lost their lives. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman.

Andrew Puzder, after a meeting, outside the clubhouse at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, on November 19, 2016. President-elect Donald Trump is expected to name Puzder, chief executive of the company that operates the fast food outlets Hardee's and Carl's Jr. and an outspoken opponent of the worker protections enacted by the Obama administration, to be secretary of labor, people close to the transition said on December 8. (Photo: Hilary Swift / The New York Times)

Donald Trump is leaning toward naming a fast food CEO to a key position tasked with enforcing the country's workplace laws.

Though Trump routinely promised to "drain the swamp," during the presidential campaign, he would be nominating, in Puzder, a man whose industry allies stand to benefit immensely from the appointment. Puzder is currently on the board of the International Franchise Association, a trade lobbying group that has pushed for the maintenance of liberalized labor markets.

"Instead of focusing on stepping up workplace regulation to create jobs and higher wages, Mr. Puzder would likely call for tools such as an overhaul of the tax system," a spokesperson for the organization told the Journal.

Puzder has been an outspoken critic of some of the Obama administration's most prominent labor initiatives, including its joint-employer rule. The rule would close a loophole that allows major retail companies and fast food chains to skirt basic labor laws -- by maintaining a network of franchises, run by independent contractors.

The burger magnate has also said the federal minimum wage should be no higher than $9 per hour, WSJ noted. In the past few years, labor organizers have been uniting with low-wage workers, including those from the fast food industry, to call on Congress to raise the federal minimum to $15 per hour. (If it kept pace with worker productivity, the federal floor would be more than $20 per hour.)

Puzder has also hit out at the Labor Department's recent overtime rules, which would make 4.2 million salaried workers eligible for additional pay, when they work more than 40 hours per week. The rules, which are currently being held up in court, could end up seeing fast food restaurant managers entitled to higher pay.

The nomination of Puzder would represent the second major clash this week that Donald Trump has set up with organized labor.

On Wednesday night, he took to Twitter to lash out at a local union leader in Indiana who criticized the President-elect's characterization of news that Carrier wouldn't be sending 1,100 jobs to Mexico.

Chuck Jones, president of the United Steelworkers Local 1999, had accused Trump of exaggerating the number of US jobs saved by the air conditioning manufacturer, in an announcement touted by the incoming administration as an example of early success.

"The union leader said Trump appeared to be taking credit for rescuing 350 engineering positions that were never scheduled to leave," The Washington Post reported Thursday. "Five hundred fifty of his members, he said, were still losing their jobs. And the company was still collecting millions of dollars in tax breaks."

The paper reported that Jones started getting threatening messages on his phone, roughly 30 minutes after Trump said that Jones "has done a terrible job representing workers."

The famous 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee -- which triggered the infamous and violent standoff with the federal government -- was the culmination of a growing dissatisfaction among members of The American Indian Movement (AIM) towards corrupt Oglala officials who were perpetually selling out their community's interests.

AIM, however, wasn't born in a political vacuum. However, it was federal policy that pushed many Native Americans off their reservations and into urban areas, energizing the long simmering 'pan-Indian' movement and inspiring the emergence of AIM. The rise of AIM, and the over-arching sense of unity among tribes across the United States, was an unintended consequence of political attempts to assimilate Native Americans and finalize the federal government's long game of cultural genocide.

The phrase 'unintended consequence' is a favorite of political conservatives. When it is used in a pre-emptive manner (rather than a retrospective one) it often serves as a caveat to government policy which sounds good in theory but could predictably achieve ends counter to the proposed intent. Conservatives regularly speak about the unintended consequences of gun control, the unintended consequences of a welfare state, and the like. And now Markwayne Mullin, one of only two Native American members of Congress -- both of whom are Republican -- has appropriated this jargon from the establishment lexicon to offer an awkward preemptive defense of his own views on the privatization of Native lands.

"We should take tribal land away from public treatment. As long as we can do it without unintended consequences, I think we will have broad support around Indian country."

Mullin, notably failing to address what sort of unintended consequences should be of concern here, issued a press release on December 5th, and even took to Facebook to defend his controversial stance.

Tellingly, the specific unintended consequences Mullin fails to directly address were also politically relevant in the discourse surrounding the Native American Energy Act.

Arizona Congressman Rep. Paul Grijalva, son of a Mexican migrant worker, dictated his opposition to the Native American Energy Act, citing:

"If an energy company is developing natural resources anywhere in the United States, and they get a tribal partner, they could fall under this provision. This could incentivize energy companies to partner with tribes simply for the benefit of skirting NEPA and profiting from restricted judicial review."

Though it passed in 2015, with the Obama administration threatening a veto, the bill was also criticized in a statement by the National Parks Conservation Association. The NPCA warned:

"The bill would insulate energy projects on tribal lands from judicial review by restricting the amount of time to file claims and by making the pursuit of a legal challenge far too expensive for the average citizen... [as well as] eliminate health and environmental protections established by the Department of the Interior in rules regarding hydraulic fracturing. Those living on and near tribal lands would be potentially subjected to heightened risk of spills, underground contamination from toxic chemicals, weakened air quality, [and] reduced well construction standards..."

On November 16, 2016, current Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, announced the 'Methane and Waste Prevention Rule'. Updating 30 years of antiquated regulations, the rule is geared to reduce pollution caused from byproducts of oil and gas operations on public and Native American lands. Jewell stated:

"This rule to prevent waste of our nation's natural gas supplies is good government, plain and simple. We are proving that we can cut harmful methane emissions that contribute to climate change, while putting in place standards that make good economic sense for the nation. Not only will we save more natural gas to power our nation, but we will modernize decades-old standards to keep pace with industry and to ensure a fair return to the American taxpayers for use of a valuable resource that belongs to all of us."

In an ironic twist, it turns out that a prominent contender to replace Jewell as Secretary of Interior under the Trump administration is none other than a close ally to Markwayne Mullin, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin.

The Oklahoma Chapter of the Sierra Club has deemed Fallin as "problematic". Sierra Club Director Johnson Bridgwater stated, "She has basically been an absentee governor on all important environmental issues in our state during her term". Bridgwater further criticized her for a sluggish response to extractivism-induced earthquakes, an overall practice of defunding environmental initiatives, and her unabashed prioritization of fossil fuel developments. Fallin is characterized overall as very 'pro-oil'.

One incident which helped garner Fallin this industry friendly reputation was her sponsorship of a bill in 2009 that, in her own words, was intended "to expedite the exploration and development of oil and gas from Federal lands." Staying in character, Fallin signed a bill in 2015 to prevent local and community level bans on fracking and other extractive activities.

For his part, Mullin also has a questionable voting record as Congressman, which notably includes voting against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), passed in 2015. VAWA famously -- and finally -- gave Native American tribes jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute non-Native men who victimized Native women on reservations.

Mullin defended his 'no' vote on VAWA by claiming objections to the inclusion of protections for lesbian, gay, and transgender individuals. In a similar show of bigotry, he voted -- not once, but twice -- against House Amendment 1128 which prohibited the use of funds for government contractors who discriminated against LGBTQ employees.

As if the Oklahoma pro-oil connections to the Trump administration weren't already gaining enough momentum, Trump recently announced plans to nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Pruitt has lead the fight against Obama's paradigm shifting climate rule for power plants, as well as several other key environmental protection statutes. Unsurprisingly at this point, he also shares Mullin's discriminatory attitude towards transgender individuals, which he demonstrated by taking part in an effort to sue the Obama administration over the so-called transgender bathroom bill.

Cherokee Congressman Markwayne Mullin seems to be extremely well situated among the pro-oil, anti-LGBTQ, political elite of Oklahoma. And it seems he is now leveraging his Cherokee identity to powerfully position himself within the incoming Trump administration -- currently co-chairing Trump's Native American Affairs Coalition.

Will Congressman Mullin's behavior beget the same sort of volatile schism between Native political leadership and Native cultural leadership that led to the infamous 1973 standoff at Wounded Knee?

With all this following on the heels of the struggle against the Dakota Access Pipeline, Native America may once again be poised for a deepening conflict between Indigenous leadership seeking to conserve their land and preserve their culture, and Indigenous 'leaders' seeking to conserve their own power and expand their own political influence.

Head of the Indigenous Environmental Network, Tom Goldtooth, has already publicly countered the notion of privatizing Native lands and swinging the door wide open to oil prospectors. Goldtooth affirmed:

"Our spiritual leaders are opposed to the privatization of our lands, which means the commoditization of the nature, water, air we hold sacred. Privatization has been the goal since colonization -- to strip Native Nations of their sovereignty."

The Black Panther Party combined Black Power's militancy with socialist ideology, and infused funk music with Franz Fanon's writings. Their impact on American Culture, from music to style to community organizing, continues to resonate today. Fifty years after the birth of the Black Panther Party, we take a look at the lasting cultural legacy of the Black Panther Party through the eyes of the generations that followed. Special thanks to this show's host Eric Arnold.

Featuring:

Cat Brooks, artist and organizer with the Anti Police-Terror Project

René de Guzman, curator of "All Power to the People: Black Panthers at Fifty" at the Oakland Museum of California

Sadie Barnette, Panther cub and artist

Refa Senay, Panther cub and artist

Hodari Davis, co-director Young Gifted and Black, organizer Life is Living

This week's episode includes updates on Trump gutting the estate tax and appointing Wall Street billionaires; the Green Party victory in Austria; big oil companies' desperation; Pope Francis on equality of opportunity; and Portland, Oregon acting against inequality. The show also includes an interview with Dr. Harriet Fraad on why white women voted for Trump.

Permission to reprint Professor Wolff's writing and videos is granted on an individual basis. Please contact profwolff@rdwolff.com to request permission. We reserve the right to refuse or rescind permission at any time.

]]>NewsFri, 09 Dec 2016 00:00:00 -0500Trump Is Inheriting Power to Assassinate Anyone, Including US Citizens, With No Oversighthttp://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38674-trump-is-inheriting-power-to-assassinate-anyone-including-us-citizens-with-no-oversight
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38674-trump-is-inheriting-power-to-assassinate-anyone-including-us-citizens-with-no-oversight

The Obama administration institutionalized a global killing apparatus that is unaccountable to the judiciary, and only nominally accountable to Congress. If US citizens aren't always entitled to due process, what limits will there be on attacks on non-citizens, especially under a Trump presidency?

Of all the people the United States government killed in the eight years of Barack Obama's presidency, one of the most controversial targets was Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen and imam who at the time of his death had become the face of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The US killed Awlaki in a drone strike in late September of 2011 -- despite having never charged him with a crime or presented evidence of his guilt in court -- marking what The New York Times described as the "first time since the Civil War [that] the United States government had carried out the deliberate killing of an American citizen as a wartime enemy and without a trial."

Now, as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office after a campaign in which he promised to carry out war crimes, such as killing the families of suspected terrorists and reviving the torture program, Awlaki's death is getting renewed attention. If Awlaki, a US citizen, could be deprived of life without judicial oversight, what limits will there be on Trump's authority to carry out similar strikes against citizens and non-citizens alike?

Jameel Jaffer, author of the new book The Drone Memos and director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, explained to me that at its core, the Awlaki case was about centralized power in the executive branch.

"My concern is, the Obama administration claimed the authority to kill people far away from conventional battlefields without ever having to account for its action to any court," Jaffer told me in a phone interview. "And the al-Awlaki case was really about that question: Should the government be able to kill its own citizens without explaining to a court why it's doing it? The Obama administration was very successful in persuading the courts to defer to the executive branch. The result is that this awesome power is not subject now to any meaningful oversight by the judiciary. And that power will now be available to the next administration."

That worry is echoed by Naureen Shah, director of national security and human rights at Amnesty International. "The concern that I raised for several years was that President Obama was acting as judge, jury and executioner with the drone program," Shah told me. "And if you apply that to President-elect Trump, I think a lot of people would be very frightened."

Although the first known US drone strike was carried out under President George W. Bush, Obama significantly accelerated the pace of so-called "targeted killings" via drones during his time in office. An independent estimate from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism places the total number of deaths from semi-covert strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia between 3,322 and 5,267. After years of sustained criticism from human rights groups, much of it centering on the Obama administration's extreme secrecy around the drone program, the White House released a three-page report detailing the number of civilians believed to have been killed by US drone attacks. Their number was significantly lower than the totals reached by outside observers, and the report was criticized for being light on details.

"Despite Obama administration claims of increased transparency and restraints on strikes outside areas of active hostilities, we still know very little about how the US determines who can and cannot be killed in these strikes, the factual claims in support, and the legal authority used," Laura Pitter, senior national security counsel at Human Rights Watch, told me. "Limits placed on them should apply to everyone equally -- not only, or to any greater degree, on US citizens. "

Pitter's argument that restrictions on the killing programs should not be limited to US citizens is widely shared amongst human rights groups. Still, as Jaffer told me, if there were going to be any limiting factor on these authorities, US citizenship is one place courts should look. "If even an American citizen isn't entitled to any form of judicial process, then there's no argument that a non-citizen would be entitled to it," he said.

That's why the Awlaki killing generated so much attention, and why the legal precedent it set is so troubling. In August 2010, the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit on behalf of Awlaki's father Nasser al-Awlaki, attempting to stop the Obama administration from carrying out the assassination. That suit was dismissed, as was a subsequent one filed after Awlaki's death.

Awlaki was born in New Mexico, and at the age of seven moved with his family to Yemen while his father went to graduate school. He returned to the US to attend college at Colorado State, later making a name for himself as a talented young imam in Denver and San Diego. He shot to national prominence in the wake of 9/11, including being interviewed by the Washington Post as a source who could explain Islam to a US audience. He had been described as a translator between Yemen and the US.

Accounts vary of when Awlaki began to develop from a mainstream preacher to a more radical one, but the global war on terror carried out under the Bush administration, and then continued by Obama, clearly played a role in radicalizing his political and religious views. If the Obama administration was hoping to silence Awlaki by ordering his death, it could not have been more unsuccessful. In making him a martyr, the administration ensured his influence would grow. Most recently, a knife-wielding student at Ohio State mentioned Awlaki on a Facebook post just before his attack, and at least 30 other attackers have made similar reference to his sermons.

Central to the Obama administration's claim to have the legal authority to kill Awlaki was its assertion that he was not just a popular YouTube sensation calling for attacks on the US, but that he was directly responsible for carrying out operations -- including offering support in 2009 to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the failed Christmas Day underwear bomber. When Awlaki went from propagandist to "operational," he became a legitimate target, according to the administration. The public evidence for Awlaki's operational role in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula relies largely on one of several confessions Abdulmutallab made in US custody. For Jaffer, that's inadequate. "There's a big difference between allegations, however compelling they may seem, and evidence that's tested in an adversarial process," he said.

It's still unclear exactly what Trump will do with the vast war-making powers he will inherit, but with his announcement that he has selected retired Marine Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis for secretary of defense, his top national security team is coming into focus. Though Mattis is well respected throughout the military, his nomination raises plenty of concerns. For one, he'll have to get a waiver from Congress, since the law requires a person to have been out of the service for seven years before becoming defense secretary, a provision designed to ensure civilian control of the military remains paramount.

For another, Mattis was pushed out of his role as head of US Central Command for his hawkish stance on Iran. And he has signaled strong support for continued indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, a position likely to find a home in the new administration. Unsurprisingly, given his job history, Mattis has a penchant for killing, saying at one point, "It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people."

To his credit, Mattis has rejected some of Trump's proposals, including a ban on Muslims entering the US and a return to torture. The rest of Trump's cabinet, however, is stocked with unapologetic Islamophobes.

For the past eight years, critics of Obama's secret assassination programs and mass surveillance operations have made two critical points. The first is that even if you trust Obama, these kinds of broad authorities invite abuse, mistakes and errors, even if those calling the shots are operating in good faith. But the second point, now made painfully relevant, is that someday you might not trust the people calling the shots. You might realize, instead, that they are terrifying. That day has come.

"The truth is, I worried about these powers even when President Obama was in charge," said Jaffer. "I think there's at least as much reason to worry, or more reason to worry, now."

A Republican member of the Electoral College has come out saying he will not vote for President-elect Donald Trump when the Electoral College convenes December 19. Christopher Suprun, a paramedic from Texas, wrote in an op-ed published in The New York Times on Monday that Trump is "not qualified for the office" of the presidency. He goes on to write, "The election of the next president is not yet a done deal. Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country. Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience." Suprun is the first Republican member of the Electoral College to publicly announce he won't vote for Trump. Meanwhile, a group of Democratic electors is trying to block Trump by encouraging electors of both parties in every state to unite behind a yet-to-be determined consensus Republican candidate. They've dubbed themselves the "Hamilton electors" after Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, who they say intended the Electoral College to safeguard the presidency. For more, we speak with Christopher Suprun.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEENSHAIKH: A Republican member of the Electoral College has come out saying he will not vote for President-elect Donald Trump when the Electoral College convenes on December 19th. Christopher Suprun, a paramedic from Texas, wrote in an op-ed published in The New York Times on Monday that Trump is, quote, "not qualified for the office" of the presidency. He goes on to write, quote, "The election of the next president is not yet a done deal. Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country. Presidential electors have the legal right and a constitutional duty to vote their conscience." Suprun is the first Republican member of the Electoral College to publicly announce he won't vote for Trump, but there are reports of other so-called faithless electors.

Meanwhile, a group of Democratic electors is trying to block Trump by encouraging electors of both parties in every state to unite behind a yet-to-be determined consensus Republican candidate. They've dubbed themselves the "Hamilton electors" after Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, who they say intended the Electoral College to safeguard the presidency. This is Democrat Bret Chiafalo, a Hamilton elector from Washington.

BRETCHIAFALO: The Electoral College is our failsafe mechanism. And, no, we've never used to before. But our country has never needed it before. We have always elected experienced statesmen. But this time is different. This is the moment Hamilton and Madison warned us about. This is the emergency they built the Electoral College for, and it is our constitutional duty and our moral responsibility to put the emergency measures into action. If only 37 Republican electors change their vote, Donald Trump will not have the 270 electoral votes he needs to be president. Thirty-seven patriots can save this country.

AMYGOODMAN: Electors are typically selected by their state's party leaders. According to FairVote, 29 states have laws forbidding electors from bucking the will of their voters. However, 21, including Texas, have no binding restrictions. Historically, it's extremely rare for electors to dissent, and so far no elector has changed the outcome of an election by voting against his or her party's designated candidate.

For more, we're going to Dallas, Texas, where we're joined by Christopher Suprun. His piece, "Why I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump," appeared in The New York Times Monday.

Christopher Suprun, welcome to Democracy Now! So, talk about how you came to this decision.

CHRISTOPHERSUPRUN: Well, painfully. I had intended to support the nominee, but, unfortunately, Mr. Trump has proven again and again he is not qualified for the office. He is a complete demagogue, as we've seen for the past 18 months, up 'til last night, where he picked on a steelworker who had to say something about his jobs plan for Carrier. That's a scary thought: When you're a simple steelworker or union boss there at a factory in Indiana, you question the president, and he comes after you 30 minutes later.

I'm not sure what the president is going to do when North Korea says something even worse about him in international relations, which brings up the second reason why he's not qualified. Fifty of my Republican colleagues, who are national security and foreign policy experts, said Mr. Trump would be a danger if he were president. And we've already seen that, where he has exacerbated situations in Taiwan and China with his change on the "one China" policy, or what appears to be a change.

And then, beyond that, part of the issue with Taiwan was it appeared to be a sales call. Mr. Trump cannot profit off the office of the president. It's expressly forbidden by the Emoluments Clause. And, it appears, every time he calls another country, it's to sell a Trump property.

NERMEENSHAIKH: And, Christopher Suprun, can you talk about what the response has been to your decision not to support Trump?

CHRISTOPHERSUPRUN: Well, which response? Because there's certainly feedback saying I'm an awful person, I'm a traitor. I saw a tweet a little while ago that said I should live out the rest of my life at Gitmo, which is a scary thought, that when a person takes a conscious decision to vote their conscience, that our answer is to charge them with treason, even verbally.

But the other feedback I've received from across Texas, from across my county, from across the country, and even outside the country, has been positive. I've had Americans of all shape and form come to me and say, "You've restored my faith in America, that maybe we can still be that great country we should be."

AMYGOODMAN: So, talk about how it works. What will happen on December 19th? Where do you go, and what will you do?

CHRISTOPHERSUPRUN: Sure. Electors from each state will go to their respective state capital. They will then cast ballots; I believe it's a six-page form. Each ballot goes to a different person. And you write in a name. It's not like a typical ballot at the ballot box in a November election, where you have to check a box, as I understand it. This is my first time participating in the process. But you actually write in a name for that candidate you are electing president and then vice president.

NERMEENSHAIKH: And how were you selected, Christopher Suprun? How were you selected to join the Electoral College?

CHRISTOPHERSUPRUN: I was elected at the Republican state convention in May.

AMYGOODMAN: So --

CHRISTOPHERSUPRUN: The Republican -- correct, the Texas Republican state convention -- I want to make sure that's clear -- not the national.

AMYGOODMAN: Twenty-nine states have laws forbidding electors from bucking the will of the people of the state. Texas is not one of them. Texas is one of the 21 that have no binding restrictions. So explain how it works for you when you will vote not for President Trump, and how it works for others in other states.

CHRISTOPHERSUPRUN: Well, I think -- again, as I just described, I think I'm going to place a name of a person who I think has got great executive and legislative experience and that can unite the country. I think we are going to go through a basic process; I'm not entirely sure of what that is. The secretary of state, as I understand it, will provide us that information when we arrive that morning. In terms of other states, I think they have a similar process, though I'm not sure how they are going to be different and what the binding laws are going to -- if they're even going to exist. As you mentioned, there's a lawsuit, I believe in Colorado, to overturn that function.

AMYGOODMAN: Who are you going to vote for?

CHRISTOPHERSUPRUN: I don't know. I'm in a deliberations phase. I said in my op-ed that I think John Kasich would be a great person. And while I know he's declined it, for me, when I speak to other electors, there's one name that comes up as an acceptable alternative over and over, and that's John Kasich.

NERMEENSHAIKH: And do you --

CHRISTOPHERSUPRUN: So I'm not sure who that person is going to be, but I think they'll be like Mr. -- Governor Kasich.

NERMEENSHAIKH: Do you know of other Republican electors who are likely to join you on December 19th in opposing Trump?

CHRISTOPHERSUPRUN: I'm not sure I'm ready to say that at this point. When I wrote the op-ed, it was so that I could be accountable for my vote, because I didn't want to go to Austin and cast a vote of appeasement and simply write in Donald Trump because I was lazy. But since that time, I've had a number of people reach out to me. And I'm -- I guess I would say this: I'm not ready to tell you who they are or what they are, but I don't think I will be alone.

AMYGOODMAN: There's a Change.org petition asking you be removed as a GOP member and/or delegate. It has 16,000 signatures so far. Christopher, your response?

CHRISTOPHERSUPRUN: If there's a link, I get those tweets all the time. People say, "Where can I sign up?" I can't respond to them all, but I try and refer them to Change.org. This is a great country. I am so glad I live in America, where people have the First Amendment right to tell me they think I'm wrong. I'm OK with that. Fill out the petition. We'll go through the process. If there is a process to remove me, I'm going to oppose it, obviously, but that's how democracy works. That's how our First Amendment works.

NERMEENSHAIKH: Well, Harvard Law professor Larry Lessig has launched The Electors Trust to provide free and confidential legal support to any Electoral College elector who chooses to vote his or her conscience.

CHRISTOPHERSUPRUN: Correct.

NERMEENSHAIKH: Lessig quotes Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson writing in 1952, saying, quote, "No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated ... that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices." And your response to that, Christopher Suprun?

CHRISTOPHERSUPRUN: Well, Mr. Lessig has reached out to me. And I've been lucky enough to have him help represent me. And I believe he's going to be representing me going forward. But I agree with the statement completely. This is what the Electoral College is for, is so that we do not elect a demagogue, somebody who cannot practice the foreign policy and national defense of the country appropriately, and one who has played fast and loose with the rules of conflicts of interest.

AMYGOODMAN: Do you consider yourself a Hamilton elector?

CHRISTOPHERSUPRUN: In the sense that I'm voting my conscience, absolutely.

AMYGOODMAN: Did you ever think you'd be in this position, Chris?

CHRISTOPHERSUPRUN: No. I'm an average person. I ran because, as you noted, I'm a paramedic firefighter. I responded to the 9/11 event. For me, that was the last time our nation was united and unified. I wish we could get back to that point. Unfortunately, I see from Mr. Trump again and again attacks on First Amendment, attacks on his critics, like our steelworker friend in Indiana last night. Anyone who he doesn't believe is appropriate or worthy or perhaps the right color, he attacks them. That's not America, and that's not what we want as a nation, I don't think.

AMYGOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you for being with us, Christopher Suprun, Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. We'll link to your piece in The New York Times, "Why I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump."

This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we're going to talk about the recount, how it's going, in Michigan, in Pennsylvania, in Wisconsin. Stay with us.

President-elect Donald Trump has announced he will nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt is seen as a close ally of the fossil fuel industry. In 2014, The New York Times revealed that Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general had formed what the paper described as an "unprecedented, secretive alliance" with the nation's top energy producers to fight Obama's climate efforts. Senator Bernie Sanders said, "Pruitt's record is not only that of being a climate change denier, but also someone who has worked closely with the fossil fuel industry to make this country more dependent, not less, on fossil fuels." For more, we speak with May Boeve, executive director of 350 Action, and Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEENSHAIKH: President-elect Donald Trump has announced he will nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt has been one of the EPA's fiercest critics and has led a legal effort to overturn parts of President Obama's climate change policies, including his Clean Power Plan. Pruitt claimed the science of climate change is, quote, "far from settled." He is also seen as a close ally of the fossil fuel industry. In 2014, The New York Times revealed that Pruitt and other Republican attorneys general had formed what the paper described as a, quote, "unprecedented, secretive alliance" with the nation's top energy producers to fight Obama's climate efforts.

AMYGOODMAN: The New York Times also exposed Pruitt's close ties to the Oklahoma firm Devon Energy. In 2014, Pruitt sent the EPA a letter accusing federal regulators of overestimating the amount of air pollution caused by energy companies drilling new natural gas wells in Oklahoma. What Pruitt didn't reveal was that the letter was secretly drafted by lawyers at Devon Energy. In 2015, Pruitt testified before Congress about his opposition to the EPA's Clean Power Plan regulations. When questioned by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Pruitt refused to acknowledge the existence of climate change.

SEN. SHELDONWHITEHOUSE: Is climate change a problem anywhere in the world?

ATTORNEYGENERALSCOTTPRUITT: Senator, I think that the process matters that the EPA engages in --

SEN. SHELDONWHITEHOUSE: I get that.

ATTORNEYGENERALSCOTTPRUITT: -- to address these issues. And that's the focus --

SEN. SHELDONWHITEHOUSE: But I didn't ask you a process question. I asked you a question about whether climate change --

ATTORNEYGENERALSCOTTPRUITT: I think that question --

SEN. SHELDONWHITEHOUSE: -- is a real problem anywhere in the world.

ATTORNEYGENERALSCOTTPRUITT: I think the question about climate action plan of the president, climate change, is something that's a policy consideration of this Congress. If you want EPA to address that in a direct way, you can amend the Clean Air Act to provide that authority and the statutory power to do so, so that the states can know how to conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with statutory construction. That's not --

SEN. SHELDONWHITEHOUSE: So, to be clear --

ATTORNEYGENERALSCOTTPRUITT: That's not --

SEN. SHELDONWHITEHOUSE: -- neither of the attorney generals present will concede that climate change is a real problem anywhere in the world.

ATTORNEYGENERALSCOTTPRUITT: Senator, I think it's immaterial to discussions about the legal framework of the Clean Air Act.

SEN. SHELDONWHITEHOUSE: Immaterial or not, I get to ask questions. And so, it's material to my question. All right, let's go on to something else.

NERMEENSHAIKH: Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse questioning Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt last year. Trump's selection of Pruitt to head the EPA has been widely criticized by environmental groups and lawmakers concerned about the climate change crisis. Senator Bernie Sanders said, quote, "Pruitt's record is not only that of being a climate change denier, but also someone who has worked closely with the fossil fuel industry to make this country more dependent, not less, on fossil fuels."

AMYGOODMAN: Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said, quote, "It's a safe assumption that Pruitt could be the most hostile EPA administrator toward clean air and safe drinking water in history."

To talk more about Scott Pruitt, we're joined by two guests. Here in New York, May Boeve is with us, executive director of 350 Action, the political arm of the climate organization 350.org. And joining us from Washington, DC, is Wenonah Hauter. She is executive director of Food & Water Watch.

WENONAHHAUTER: Well, you know, I first ran into Scott Pruitt when I was writing my recent book, Frackopoly, on the history of the oil and gas industry, and saw that he was one of the leading attorney generals lobbying on what he called sue-and-settle legislation, which we know that our citizenry has the right to sue the federal government when the government is not doing what's in their best interest. And he was lobbying in favor of Devon and Continental Resources in trying to stop the ability of citizens to actually move forward with lawsuits.

I think that putting Pruitt in charge of the EPA is a lot like putting one of The Three Stooges in charge of the agency, because he is not really credible on any of the issues around the environment. We can look at what he did in 2013 when he brought nine attorney generals to Oklahoma City, some of the most powerful law firms that represent the energy industry, along with the CEOs of many energy companies, to put together a scheme about how they were going to stop the federal government from taking action to stop the pollution from fossil fuel drilling and fracking. This was paid for by the right-wing energy and law institute at George Mason University.

The fossil fuel industry actually helped raise the money to put him in office. And one of the first things he did upon becoming the attorney general of Oklahoma was to start a committee on federalism, because what's unfortunate about Pruitt is, not only is he a cartoon character, but he's a very smart politician. And he saw the possibility of creating what is a lot like a national law firm, made up of attorney generals and also the legal arm of the energy industry, to be able to not only hassle the EPA, but also what was going on at state legislatures regarding fossil fuel development. So I think he's a very dangerous character.

I think that he is going to attempt to destroy the Environmental Protection Agency, and not just in the area of fossil fuels, but also around the pollution from factory farming and industrialized agriculture. He has been an ally of the big corporations that own these large animal factories. In fact, there was legislation that was turned down in Oklahoma in the last election called Freedom to Farm, which, of course, really means freedom of factory farms to pollute. So we know that, because the EPA hasn't done a real great job of regulating factory farms anyway, that we're going to see a lot of trouble ahead.

NERMEENSHAIKH: May Boeve, in the news release that announced his nomination, the Trump transition team called Pruitt "an expert in Constitutional law" and said he, quote, "brings a deep understanding of the impact of regulations on both the environment and the economy." So could you respond to that and, in particular, the significance of him being a constitutional lawyer?

MAYBOEVE: Well, it's no surprise that he knows about the impact of regulation, because the regulations were starting to work. We were starting to see real pressure on the oil and gas industry on the issue of climate change. And they are pushing back. And so, they are celebrating that Scott Pruitt has been selected for this role. So, his expertise in this area means he's going to try to dismantle the foundation of laws that this country has built around environmental protection. Most significantly right now are the regulations that have been put in place around coal plants, around fracking. They're not nearly as strong as they need to be, but we certainly need the ones that we have. And so, this is a very dangerous appointment. It cannot be overstated. And it shows us exactly what we need to know about Donald Trump.

AMYGOODMAN: I want to go back to Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's appearance on Capitol Hill in 2015, when he testified about his legal fight against President Obama's Clean Power Plan regulations.

ATTORNEYGENERALSCOTTPRUITT: I think what is lost in the debate, at times, is the impact on consumers, those that will be consuming electricity in the future. In the state of Oklahoma, between coal and natural gas, 78 percent of our electricity is generated. As I indicated in my opening comment, 15 percent of our electricity is generated through wind. The choices available to the state of Oklahoma to comply with this mandate from the EPA of reducing CO2 by over 30 percent, it puts us in a position of having to make decisions about the shuttering of coal generation, which, as I indicated, makes up over 40 percent of our electricity generation. That's going to increase cost substantially to consumers, this one rule. To give you an example, in the Clean Air Act, there is something called the regional haze statute, as you know -- section of the Clean Air Act. That one rule alone, between PSO, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, and OG&E in the state of Oklahoma have seen 15 to 20 percent increases in their generation of electricity, with just one rule. When we combine all these others, it's going to be obviously substantially more than that in the future for consumers in the state of Oklahoma.

SEN. JOHNBARRASSO: So these regulations would directly hurt -- hurt -- the people of Oklahoma.

ATTORNEYGENERALSCOTTPRUITT: Some of the folks that can least afford it.

AMYGOODMAN: So there you have Scott Pruitt testifying before the Senate. Wenonah Hauter, respond to what Pruitt has just said.

WENONAHHAUTER: Well, this is really a false dichotomy that we see all the time when energy is discussed. Really, what we need to do is be moving into a more energy-efficient and an energy future that relies on renewable energy. This would create many jobs, and it would also solve many of the problems that are going to cost taxpayers a lot of money as we see the problems from climate change really snowball.

You know, it's interesting that Pruitt and his allies have attacked the Clean Power Plan. I don't think that they completely understand what the plan does. It certainly disadvantages coal, which is a very, very dirty fossil fuel, but states are able to make their own plans. And one of the criticisms of the plan has been that it really incentivizes natural gas. And, of course, coal is being -- the industry is being destroyed because the amount of fossil fuel that has been fracked for has increased so much that it's real -- that coal is now a higher price.

So, I think that what we're going to see at EPA is a real attack on anything that protects people or the environment. And this is really disturbing, because attorney generals are supposed to be the attorneys for the people, and Pruitt clearly is an attorney for the fossil fuel industry. And we're going to have to unite against Pruitt and the policies that he's going to put forward.

AMYGOODMAN: You talked about fracked oil. And I wanted to talk specifically about Oklahoma, where residents have filed a class action lawsuit against fracking companies over a massive 5.0-magnitude earthquake that struck the city of Cushing in November, knocking out power, rupturing gas lines, partially collapsing buildings. Cushing bills itself as the pipeline crossroads of the world and is home to above-ground tanks that store millions of barrels of crude oil. Scientists believe wastewater disposal wells from oil and gas fracking are linked to the dramatic rise in earthquakes in Oklahoma in recent years. Oklahoma experienced 907 magnitude-three-plus earthquakes in 2015. Before 2008, Oklahoma experienced an average of only one and two earthquakes of 3.0 magnitude each year. Your response to that, May Boeve?

MAYBOEVE: Well, this is very telling about what we're going to see more of. Recently, we heard from the chief in the Pawnee Reservation that they had had three earthquakes that day. So the earthquake epidemic in Oklahoma is significant. And here we have someone who wants to do more drilling, who wants there to be more earthquakes in Oklahoma, so is clearly not concerned about the people who live in that state and all the people in other states around this country who suffer from the impacts of fracking. Instead, he is going to make the pathway to more oil and gas development much smoother for his allies in the industry. But the good news here, if there is any, is that the climate movement has focused on fossil fuel infrastructure and won incredible victories at the local and state level. And so, if he intends to expand drilling, we will be there at every turn, ready to resist.

NERMEENSHAIKH: So what do you think the climate movement should be doing now in response to this?

MAYBOEVE: Well, we have to be incredibly clear-eyed about what we are up against. As we know, Trump has been saying two different stories about climate change. On the one hand, maybe he's revisiting his position on climate denial. On the other hand, he's making an appointment like this. So, no one should be under any illusion that we're going to see any sort of continuation of the progress we've seen on climate action. What the movement needs to do is be strong and unified and fight back on all of these decisions and appointments. And also, we can grow our movement. So many people who are concerned about the election of Donald Trump are concerned about what it means for this issue that is going to affect generations that have yet to come. And so, we are seeing many more people who want to get involved, who want to do more, who want to organize and march. That is what they will do. And so, Scott Pruitt better get ready for that.

AMYGOODMAN: Well, of course, Scott Pruitt is Donald Trump's choice, and that's what's key here, is his view on climate, on the environment. May Boeve, one of the -- couple of the choices that have been bandied about, media has speculated about, for secretary of state are the current and past presidents of Exxon. Can you talk about Scott Pruitt's relationship with Exxon as attorney general of Oklahoma?

MAYBOEVE: Well, on the subject of appointments, it's absolutely devastating that the CEO of Exxon would be considered for secretary of state, just to be completely clear about that.

AMYGOODMAN: They talk about him -- that means he has global experience. It's a global company.

MAYBOEVE: Yeah, of course. It's absolutely disastrous as even an idea. But in terms of Scott Pruitt's relationship to Exxon, he joined forces with other attorneys general backing up Exxon when it came under fire for its climate denial. There is an investigation underway into just how long ago Exxon knew about climate change and funded a disinformation campaign. And so, naturally, our government is doing its job in trying to find out how much they knew and when, and Exxon has gathered around it its allies at the state level, including Attorney General Scott Pruitt, to back it up. And so, we are seeing Exxon try to use its freedom of speech to lie to the public about climate change, and we're seeing climate deniers heading up for the EPA. We're living in some kind of twilight zone.

AMYGOODMAN: How does Exxon affect you at 350?

MAYBOEVE: Well, Exxon has come after our organization and a number of our allies. We've received one subpoena from Lamar Smith, who is a representative from the state of Texas, and we've received another subpoena from Exxon directly. And we are fighting back, but this is the kind of thing we can all expect to see more of under a Trump administration. We have to fight back. But they are not playing around.

AMYGOODMAN: This news from Greenpeace: Harold Hamm, Trump's top energy adviser and CEO of the country's largest fracking company, was chair of Pruitt's 2013 re-election campaign for Oklahoma attorney general. More recently, he's made news as one of the biggest proponents of the Dakota Access pipeline. It's his company's fracked oil that would have flowed through the pipeline if it had been completed. Wenonah Hauter, if you could talk about this? Now, Donald Trump has vowed to -- says he supports the Dakota Access pipeline. Not clear how much he personally has invested in the Dakota Access pipeline -- last we knew, between half a million and a million dollars, but one of his spokespeople said he's now sold that. Then there is his investment in Phillips 66, that would also profit. But what this means for what Trump, when he becomes president, Attorney General Scott Pruitt, if he were to become head of the EPA, means for the Dakota Access pipeline, which at this point the Army Corps of Engineers says will not grant a final permit to drill under the Missouri River?

WENONAHHAUTER: Well, Harold Hamm has also been an adviser on energy issues to the Trump campaign. And they've been associated for the last several years. So, we can see that when Trump comes into office, he is going to probably try to attack what President Obama has done on the Dakota Access line. And we can see that there's really an unholy alliance here. Harold Hamm's company, Continental Resources, is one of the largest frackers for oil. And, of course, 80 percent of fracking since 2012 has been for oil, and much of it from the Dakotas. And the industry is desperate to get the oil out for overseas delivery, and that's why the export ban was released as part of the omnibus budget bill in 2015. So, we see that there's going to have to be a concerted effort to make the connections between these fossil fuel corporations and the Trump administration very clear, and we're going to have to hammer it home.

I also want to say that I think that Standing Rock and the massive movement that's been created out of this terrible debacle that the fossil fuel industry has tried to bring to the Sioux tribe in North Dakota, we're seeing that kind of infrastructure development all over the country. There are thousands of miles of pipelines. We can make a lot of progress at the state level on some of these issues. And it's completely true what May says about the movement growing. The movement is growing. We need to be there during the process for confirming Pruitt and really bringing to light what he stands for and what is going to happen to our environment and our climate because of Pruitt.

AMYGOODMAN: I want to just ask very quickly of May Boeve -- a lot has been made of this meeting that President-elect Donald Trump has had with his daughter Ivanka and Al Gore on the issue of climate change. Respond.

MAYBOEVE: Well, he can have all the meetings he wants that make it sound like he cares about this issue, but if he makes appointments like this, we know exactly where he stands, which is supporting more drilling, more fracking, which we know causes climate change.

AMYGOODMAN: We're going to leave it there, May Boeve, executive director of 350 Action; Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. Thanks so much for being with us.

Eighteen million people, just slightly under half of the people living with HIV and AIDS globally, are now taking life-saving medication, but global efforts to end the disease still largely depend on prevention.

While efforts to expand antiretroviral treatment have been relatively successfully, prevention efforts have been more mixed.

With the help of treatment, mother to baby transmission has dropped significantly. Transmission between adults aged 30 and over has also dropped.

However, transmission rates among adolescents have risen, causing concern, particularly about the high number of new cases among young women between the ages of 15 to 24.

According to UNAIDS, a new report, "shows that the ages between 15 and 24 years are an incredibly dangerous time for young women."

The report included data from six studies in Southern Africa, which showed that "southern Africa girls aged between 15 and 19 years accounted for 90% of all new HIV infections among 10 to 19-year-olds."

"Young women are facing a triple threat," said UNAIDS Executive Director, Michel Sidibé. "They are at high risk of HIV infection, have low rates of HIV testing, and have poor adherence to treatment. The world is failing young women and we urgently need to do more."

The report also noted the countries that have increased their domestic funding for HIV prevention, "including Namibia, which has committed to investing 30% of its HIV budget in preventing HIV among adults and children."

Ensuring the continued and renewed domestic and international funding for both treatment and prevention was the subject of discussion at the Center for Global Development in Washington DC on Monday.

The event, held ahead of World AIDS Day on 1 December, focused on a US government initiative aimed at involving government finance departments, as well as health departments, in the HIV response.

Currently over 55 percent of the HIV response in low and middle-income countries comes from the governments of low and middle income countries.

However a significant amount of international support, roughly one third overall funding, comes from the US government, which has made tackling HIV and AIDS a priority through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).

However while US funding for the HIV and AIDS response is considered bipartisan HIV and AIDS support, like any US government program may change under Presidency of Donald Trump.

IPS spoke to Amanda Glassman, Vice President for Programs and Director of Global Health Policy at the Center for Global Development after the event:

"Of course we all hope that this is a bi-partisan consensus but the fact that we, the US government, continue to pay directly for service delivery in some countries is a huge risk," she said. "On the one hand I think maybe it makes it harder to cut, but on the other hand if it does get cut it's a disaster."

Of the 18 million people currently on antiretroviral treatment globally, "4.5 million are receiving direct support," from the US while an additional 3.2 million are receiving indirect support through partner countries.

While there remains broad consensus over treatment, prevention efforts are considered more politically contentious.

Previous Republican administrations have supported abstinence programs, which studies have shown to be ineffective at preventing HIV transmission.

Glassman noted that while there is more political consensus over treatment programs "you need prevention really to finish this."

However she noted one positive example from incoming Vice-President Mike Pence's home state of Indiana.

"(Pence) actually eliminated (needle exchange) programs and then saw HIV / AIDS go up and so he reversed his position, so I think that sounds good, he listens to evidence and action," said Glassman.

However Pence's record on women's reproductive rights and his reported comments that in 2002 that condoms are too "modern" and "liberal", may not bode well for overall prevention efforts, especially considering that addressing higher transmission rates among adolescent girls also requires addressing gender inequality and sexual violence. [Update: In 2000, Pence's campaign website also said that a US government HIV/AIDS program should direct resources "toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior," a statement many have interpreted as support for gay-conversion therapy.]

Reducing the high rates of transmission among adolescent girls will not be easy. It involves increasing girls economic independence as well as helping them to stay in school longer.

"It's a discussion of investment in secondary school … so the discussion is bigger than health," said US Global AIDS Coordinator, Deborah Birx at the event.

This is one of the reasons why involving government finance departments is important.

However finding additional funds for both education and health in the "hardest hit countries" will not be easy, said Glassman.

"(These countries) are coming in with growth projections that are much lower, they have pretty low tax yields meaning that the amount that they get from their tax base is pretty low."

Voters cast their ballots at a voting precinct on Election Day in Flint, Michigan, on November 8, 2016. (Photo: Brittany Greeson / The New York Times)

The Green Party's best chance to overturn a statewide victory by Donald Trump has run into a swamp of dubious election protocols in Michigan, where Detroit officials said nearly two-thirds of the precincts cannot be recounted because of poor record-keeping on or after election night -- presumably the rationale for a recount.

That unexpected hurdle, which was also present in other southeastern Michigan counties with communities of color such as Flint and Lansing and where Hillary Clinton won by the largest margins, emerged as the Trump campaign and Republicans pursued appeals in federal and state courts to block the recount. (Late Tuesday, the two courts issued contradictory rulings allowing it to continue.)

Meanwhile, in the state's legislature, a House committee passed a bill retroactively requiring the Greens to pay more for the recount.

"Donald Trump and GOP allies in Michigan are launching an attack against the recount, and attempting to strip the constitutional and civil rights of Michigan voters who are demanding that their voices be heard," Jill Stein said earlier Tuesday. Her campaign is focused on verifying whether over 75,000 people did not cast votes for president in a state Trump leads by under 11,000 votes.

"In addition to verifying the reliability of our voting machines, this recount has begun to expose a modern-day electoral Jim Crow," Stein said. "Hand-counting the ballots has revealed many irregularities and red flags about the quality and maintenance of voting technology, the handling of ballots, and other aspects of election administration in communities of color. This raises serious questions about whether historically marginalized communities have been massively disenfranchised during this election."

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, where it does not appear Clinton will emerge as the winner in the recount, election integrity activists not working for Stein have discovered a serious security vulnerability to voting systems in many counties including Milwaukee, where ballot scanners have cellphone network SIM cards to transmit precinct vote totals to the county office. The state has said no Wisconsin voting systems are connected to the internet to guard against hackers, but one computer scientist who filed an affidavit supporting the Greens' lawsuit for hand-counting ballots said such connectivity was standard -- and accessible to hackers.

"There are hacks involving the public switched telephone network that are quite distinct from internet hacks, but just as dangerous," said Doug Jones, a University of Iowa associate professor of computer science. "I would not be shocked to find that the [ESS ballot scanner] DS200 is vulnerable to some of these, but I do not know it to be vulnerable." In other words, Jones, who has studied voting machines for many years, said the election integrity activists have legitimate concerns, even if he has not seen counts compromised this way. "I don't find this surprising," he said. "It appears that numerous communications options are available, and Milwaukee has selected the one that doesn't require them to make sure that polling places have landlines."

The Green Party has launched presidential recounts in three states, which is unprecedented. In the third state, Pennsylvania, it filed a federal suit this week seeking to impound electronic voting machines to look for signs of tampering with vote totals. While many people outside computing circles dismiss that possibility, the Greens are pursuing and evaluating a complicated spectrum of political, legal and cyber tactics that could tilt the vote count. (In Pennsylvania, where top election officials have rejected this scenario, news reports Tuesday said Pittsburgh's top prosecutor's office was hacked last year and paid a $1,400 ransom to unlock its files.)

Michigan Barriers Emerge

The recount's biggest developments Tuesday were in Michigan, where the day started with the growing revelation that thousands of ballots in the counties most solidly behind Clinton were being deemed ineligible for the recount.

Trump leads here by less than 11,000 votes, promoting many observers to say that Clinton's best chance to close that gap would be in Wayne County, home of Detroit, where she won by a two-to-one margin. But shortly after the recount began Monday, local officials discovered that many precincts would be excluded from the recount because precinct ballot totals didn't match the number of voters signing poll books.

"It's not good," Daniel Baxter, Detroit's elections director, told the Detroit News Monday, saying that at least 87 ballot scanners failed on Election Day, with many jamming. In 392 of the city's 662 voting precincts, vote totals recorded on the machines did not match the number of voters signing in, he said, disqualifying 59 percent of the city's precincts from the recount.

There were equally murky problems reported in other Michigan counties that disqualified precincts from the recount, explained local election officials like Barb Byrum, county clerk of Ingham, where Lansing is located. If there's damage to the plastic containers storing the ballots, or if the seal number on the containers doesn't match the poll books, "then there is a very good possibility that precinct will not be recountable," she said. "The [state] Bureau of Elections is here to guide this process along."

"In the first six hours of Ingham County's recount Monday, six of 30 precincts from Lansing could not be recounted," the Detroit News reported. "One of the ballot containers had a hole in it, making it susceptible to tampering and not recountable."

These disqualifications, which election observers from outside Michigan said were astounding as they underscore the reason for verifying the vote, are well-known to civil rights lawyers in Michigan, who for years have been urging the state to raise its standards. Outside lawyers observing the recount sent memos Tuesday citing Michigan election law (Sections 871 and 872, of Act 116 of 1954) that states, "Canvassers shall have full power and authority to subpoena witnesses and open any ballot box, regardless of the condition in which the same may be found, and may break open, if sealed, the seal thereon and examine the ballots."

When asked about the apparent contradiction between recount practices in Detroit and surrounding counties, and Michigan election law, Fred Woodhams, spokesman for the Michigan Department of State, replied, "I want to check in with elections leadership about it. They are all at a court hearing right now. It is doubtful I'll be able to respond to you today."

That hearing, at the Michigan Court of Appeals, a three-member Republican bench, was the GOP's latest attempt to shut down the recount. The appeals court held a hearing on lawsuits from Trump's campaign and state Attorney General Bill Schuette, who are arguing that the recount should end because Stein's petition was "deficient" and because she "has no possible opportunity to win Michigan's electoral votes."

The Greens, however, want to know why there were 75,335 "undervotes" in the state, or ballots that were filled out except for the selection of president. "Many of these are in Oakland and Wayne counties, which include Detroit, raising the very real possibility that communities of color may have been disenfranchised by an unreliable counting of the votes," the Green Party Tuesday press statement said. "The number of under-votes exceeds by several-fold Trump's margin of victory in the state."

Late Tuesday, the Michigan appeals court directed the Board of State Canvassers to reject Stein's recount petition, but did not order the recount to be stopped, because as numerous experts have pointed out, their hands are tied by a US District Court ruling ordering it to commence. Later Tuesday, that federal court also said the recount should continue.

The Greens were anticipating they might lose in state appeals court and be forced to take their fight to Michigan's Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the Stein campaign filed papers to disqualify two Michigan Supreme Court justices from hearing cases related to the recount.

"Chief Justice Robert Young Jr. and Justice Joan Larsen have been mentioned by Donald Trump as potential nominees to the US Supreme Court, and their involvement in the case would create an appearance of impropriety," the summary said. "[Both justices] have a substantial personal and professional interest in the election of Trump as president and in conducting themselves in a way which is favorable to him and/or hostile to, among others, other candidates for president," wrote Mark Brewer, Stein's lawyer.